Feds seize 101 domains for counterfeiting in “Cyber Monday” operation

Dozens of domains were seized on Monday in a coordinated raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and its counterparts in several European nations. American officials seized 101 domain names, while the Europeans seized 31. The domains were allegedly used for the distribution of counterfeit goods.

The raids were timed to coincide with "Cyber Monday," the day the nation's white-collar workers kick off their online holiday shopping from their work computers. Control over the domains was transferred to government officials who replaced the websites' contents with a warning about the penalties for trafficking in counterfeit goods.

According to a press release issued by ICE, the counterfeit goods in question included "professional sports jerseys, DVD sets, and a variety of clothing, jewelry and luxury goods from online retailers who were suspected of selling counterfeit products." Federal magistrate judges issued orders to seize the domains.

The seizures are part of Operation In Our Sites, a program launched in 2010 to seize websites used to distribute infringing goods and content. ICE says that it has seized a total of 1529 domain names and forfeited 684 of them to the government.

Parker Higgins of the Electronic Frontier Foundation was critical of the seizures, which can occur before domain owners have been convicted, or even charged, with any crime. "Domain seizures on Cyber Monday are timed to cause maximum disruption," he tweeted, arguing that was "great if you're not worried about due process."

In a related action last Wednesday, American law enforcement officials arrested a man in Buffalo, NY, and charged him with criminal trafficking in counterfeit goods. Gary Hammer of Cheektowaga, NY, is charged with selling counterfeit Microsoft software on Craigslist. He allegedly ignored a cease-and-desist letter from Microsoft earlier this year.

46 Reader Comments

Good going feds. It's not like you're actively selling guns to cartels or anything. Also, never mind the folks cutting heads off with chainsaws in Mexico. Those crimes are petty compared to copyright violations, right? What a bunch of crap.

Good going feds. It's not like you're actively selling guns to cartels or anything. Also, never mind the folks cutting heads off with chainsaws in Mexico. Those crimes are petty compared to copyright violations, right? What a bunch of crap.

Pat yourselves on the back some more. How fitting.

You really can not trust this Government ! Now we ca wait a few more days and we will see that some of those Sites were taken down illegally.

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

I don't doubt that they have reasonable cause for their suspicions, and maybe every single domain seized was in fact selling illicit goods, but it's still a terrible prospect for anyone running a small operation to be subject to seizure at mere suspicion.

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

Good going feds. It's not like you're actively selling guns to cartels or anything. Also, never mind the folks cutting heads off with chainsaws in Mexico. Those crimes are petty compared to copyright violations, right? What a bunch of crap.

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

No, it's just like you were selling counterfeit stuff out of a storefront. The cops come in, seize your crap and shut you down. If you get found innocent you get your shit back.

Of course you would rather they were allowed to keep selling the fake shit until the trial date. Or a couple of days before when they vanish with all the extra cash they made in those couple of months.

Good going feds. It's not like you're actively selling guns to cartels or anything. Also, never mind the folks cutting heads off with chainsaws in Mexico. Those crimes are petty compared to copyright violations, right? What a bunch of crap.

Pat yourselves on the back some more. How fitting.

What do you mean? Those guns were perfectly legitimate.

Well the guns delivered by Operation Wide Receicer were just fine. Only the Fast and Furious guns are evil.

Good going feds. It's not like you're actively selling guns to cartels or anything. Also, never mind the folks cutting heads off with chainsaws in Mexico. Those crimes are petty compared to copyright violations, right? What a bunch of crap.

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

Nice to see the feds stepping in like this to protect intellectual property rights. By chance does anyone know if the feds shut down Facebook, which is notorious for passively allowing its ad partners to use copyrighted images without permission from the original creators?

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

Can ICE at least TRY to be less blatantly douchey? Do they really need to seize all these domains at the same time at a moment that show clearly specifically who they are working for?

Also, it seems to me that calling the Windows software 'counterfeit' is a bit deceptive. The same goes for drugs. In both cases, they are from unauthorized retailers, but the goods in question are most likely real and functionally identical to the legitimate goods.

Good going feds. It's not like you're actively selling guns to cartels or anything. Also, never mind the folks cutting heads off with chainsaws in Mexico. Those crimes are petty compared to copyright violations, right? What a bunch of crap.

Pat yourselves on the back some more. How fitting.

What do you mean? Those guns were perfectly legitimate.

Well the guns delivered by Operation Wide Receicer were just fine. Only the Fast and Furious guns are evil.

No, but Wide Receiver was earlier, smaller, and didn't result in the DoJ and President denying the Senate legal access to documents for an independent investigation.

Can ICE at least TRY to be less blatantly douchey? Do they really need to seize all these domains at the same time at a moment that show clearly specifically who they are working for?

Also, it seems to me that calling the Windows software 'counterfeit' is a bit deceptive. The same goes for drugs. In both cases, they are from unauthorized retailers, but the goods in question are most likely real and functionally identical to the legitimate goods.

The use of 'counterfeit' isn't deceptive because counterfeit goods are an attempt to be real and functionally identical to the legitimate goods. A bad copy isn't by intention. Does a counterfeit dollar bill becomes not "counterfeit" if one is able to reproduce a perfect copy?

Also, it seems to me that calling the Windows software 'counterfeit' is a bit deceptive. The same goes for drugs. In both cases, they are from unauthorized retailers, but the goods in question are most likely real and functionally identical to the legitimate goods.

In your opinion. Where's your proof? BTW, anyone is an idiot for trying to get "illegal copies" of Windows, most likely because they're distributed by those with malicious intent to do harm (e.g., trojans and spyware)

The use of 'counterfeit' isn't deceptive because counterfeit goods are an attempt to be real and functionally identical to the legitimate goods. A bad copy isn't by intention. Does a counterfeit dollar bill becomes not "counterfeit" if ones is able to reproduce a perfect copy?

The function of a dollar bill is to be a placeholder for value backed by a government. A dollar that isn't backed by something is worthless. The way a dollar is fake is when it's not backed by the party the dollar claims to be backed by. The function of a drug is to cure or treat a disease. A lot of the 'counterfeit' drugs were drugs that were perfectly legally produced in Canada but not legal to import into the US. they are real drugs, they have the same amount of the same active ingredients. They aren't fake drugs. Likewise, this isn't fake software. The software is bit-identical to the that coming from legitimate channels.

It's illegal, but it's not counterfeit. Counterfeit means a fake or a forgery, but in most cases, nobody is being fooled as to the situation. It's an overly broad usage of counterfeit that is deceptive.

Good going feds. It's not like you're actively selling guns to cartels or anything. Also, never mind the folks cutting heads off with chainsaws in Mexico. Those crimes are petty compared to copyright violations, right? What a bunch of crap.

Pat yourselves on the back some more. How fitting.

out of curiosity, who did you vote for? i suspect a lot of obama voters on ars are complaining about the government they voted for.

Also, it seems to me that calling the Windows software 'counterfeit' is a bit deceptive. The same goes for drugs. In both cases, they are from unauthorized retailers, but the goods in question are most likely real and functionally identical to the legitimate goods.

In your opinion. Where's your proof? BTW, anyone is an idiot for trying to get "illegal copies" of Windows, most likely because they're distributed by those with malicious intent to do harm (e.g., trojans and spyware)

Unless of course you check the hash with a verified source first (I believe MS provides both md5 and SHA-1 of different versions and sources). There are malware laden copies of Windows, but the threat is overblown dramatically as a fear tactic.

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

"Due process" does not translate to "untouchable". Suspects is exactly the right word. Suspects and suspected items are indeed the ones seized and searched (eg. arrested, confiscated, etc.) Otherwise, seriously, what are you advocating? People not suspected be arrested? That would seem to be the breach of ethics to me.

People do get the chance to answer and defend themselves. That's called "court" where we tend to have attorneys, judges and even juries. Look it up some time. It's all a part of this "due process" you mentioned earlier. The owners of the seized sites can always come forward and have their day in court.

"Due process" does not translate to "untouchable". Suspects is exactly the right word. Suspects and suspected items are indeed the ones seized and searched (eg. arrested, confiscated, etc.) Otherwise, seriously, what are you advocating? People not suspected be arrested? That would seem to be the breach of ethics to me.

People do get the chance to answer and defend themselves. That's called "court" where we tend to have attorneys, judges and even juries. Look it up some time. It's all a part of this "due process" you mentioned earlier. The owners of the seized sites can always come forward and have their day in court.

First of all, these are primarily civil concerns, so at most, these parties claiming infringement should be seeking an injunction. Secondly, the matter in which the domains are seized has potential to upset legitimate businesses. These domain seizures have made significant snafus in the past, and they appear to be mostly just for show. These seizures are almost certainly not worth the time and money that taxpayers are spending on this corporate muscle flexing, so we don't need them at all, let alone with a 'shoot first, ask questions later' philosophy.

It's also quite likely that a number of these sites are not in any way related to the US other than using a gTLD. There's no real US jurisdiction over their actions, and all this is doing is devaluing US-based domains.

Good going feds. It's not like you're actively selling guns to cartels or anything. Also, never mind the folks cutting heads off with chainsaws in Mexico. Those crimes are petty compared to copyright violations, right? What a bunch of crap.

Pat yourselves on the back some more. How fitting.

out of curiosity, who did you vote for? i suspect a lot of obama voters on ars are complaining about the government they voted for.

You really think any of this shit would have been better under Romney?

Good going feds. It's not like you're actively selling guns to cartels or anything. Also, never mind the folks cutting heads off with chainsaws in Mexico. Those crimes are petty compared to copyright violations, right? What a bunch of crap.

Pat yourselves on the back some more. How fitting.

out of curiosity, who did you vote for? i suspect a lot of obama voters on ars are complaining about the government they voted for.

You really think any of this shit would have been better under Romney?

No doubt. Hence my previous point about complaints about privacy (like the TSA or Patriot Act) being instituted under Bush, yet ratified again by Obama. I voted Green Party, not that third party's have a chance under current campaign funding laws (third parties don't even get a chance to participate in national publicized debates).

Good going feds. It's not like you're actively selling guns to cartels or anything. Also, never mind the folks cutting heads off with chainsaws in Mexico. Those crimes are petty compared to copyright violations, right? What a bunch of crap.

Pat yourselves on the back some more. How fitting.

out of curiosity, who did you vote for? i suspect a lot of obama voters on ars are complaining about the government they voted for.

Voting for a party doesn't automatically mean you have to agree with everything they do.

Also, as someone else already pointed out, there's no reason to suspect this issue would be handled any better by a Romney administration, or a Republican administration in general.

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

No, it's just like you were selling counterfeit stuff out of a storefront. The cops come in, seize your crap and shut you down. If you get found innocent you get your shit back.

Of course you would rather they were allowed to keep selling the fake shit until the trial date. Or a couple of days before when they vanish with all the extra cash they made in those couple of months.

Innocent until proven guilty? The concept of seizing possessions because there's the possibility that the accused might skip town is just crazy. It was introduced "in limited circumstances, to defeat organised crime", but is now apparently applied to almost anyone who's accused of earning money from criminal activity. Unless they're a CEO or a politician, that is.

And of course you're assuming that they are selling "fake" products - presumably pretending that their Chinese-made watches are another brand of Chinese-made watch? Why are governments protecting business properties (i.e. trademarks)? Can't the businesses do it? And seriously - does someone buying a fake Cartier really mean a lost sale of a real Cartier?

Finally, you suggest that people can "vanish" a few days before trial with all their extra cash. You're assuming here that they have actually made enormous amounts of money - many of these businesses are your typical struggling small business. You're also suggesting that there's no way to get a court to order a halt to trade until the court date - at least in a court you can defend yourself. And the skipping town thing? Seriously, can't police keep track of alleged criminals? Because the way of dealing with that is to give police more resources, not to punish people who haven't been convicted of anything.

So they've seized 1529, forfeited 684...what of the other 845? In process? Turned out legit and handed back? Quietly held and the original owners gave up figuring there's no way back once the feds seize your property?

It'd be one thing if we're talking due process, transparency, etc. But look at djaz1 - the feds took his shit, didn't tell him what was going on, then very quietly handed it back once it was established that he hadn't done anything wrong. If they'd at least admit they screwed up, it'd be a bit better. The way they handle these cases, though, feels like we're creeping closer to squads just disappearing 'malcontents' off the streets.

As to the Obama vs Romney bit - yeah, Obama's done good on some things - equal pay act, gay rights, and a few others. But you can't argue that in some other ways, he's been worse than Bush was - the drone strikes, having the DOJ play rabid watchdog for private industries (the *AAs), the NDAA, etc. Romney would have been worse all around, if there was money and power to be had by doing it - don't doubt he would have hopped in the pockets of the *AAs, the Koch brothers, the petroleum industry, pharmaceutical companies, etc, about 10 minutes after being inaugurated.

"In a related action last Wednesday, American law enforcement officials arrested a man in Buffalo, NY, and charged him with criminal trafficking in counterfeit goods. Gary Hammer of Cheektowaga, NY, is charged with selling counterfeit Microsoft software on Craigslist. He allegedly ignored a cease-and-desist letter from Microsoft earlier this year."

Is it just me, or does this statement seem to fly in the face of Constitutional guarantees of due process? Something is very wrong when these actions are allowed to occur without offering a chance for the accused to at least answer, or defend themselves against, the charges.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.